One paragraph of the Directorate of Enforcement’s 30 April 2026 release describes something more troubling than a single fraudulent app: a payment aggregator that the ED says was operating without a Reserve Bank licence at all.
What the ED says about Zhudao Infotech
The ED states that M/s Zhudao Infotech Private Limited, “run by Ming Lou, General Manager and Jian Li, Director was acting as a payment aggregator which was facilitating the routing of the Proceeds of Crime which were collected through online gaming/betting/ponzi investment scams, not limited to HPZ Token scam.”
And then, flatly: “M/s Zhudao Infotech Private Limited was found to be running illegally without the license of RBI.”
Why a payment aggregator licence exists
A payment aggregator handles other people’s money in transit. It collects from customers and settles to merchants, which means it decides which merchants get access to the payment system.
The Reserve Bank licenses that activity precisely because the gatekeeping matters. An aggregator is supposed to know who its merchants are. The licence is the mechanism by which someone is accountable for that.
The ED’s allegation is that this gatekeeping function was being performed by an entity that was never licensed to perform it.
The onboarded entities
The ED continues: “It onboarded several bogus/paper entities on its platform through which the Proceeds of Crime were laundered. Several of these concerns were not found operating at their registered addresses.”
Then the detail that gives the operation its shape: “the Directors in these onboarded merchants (bogus concerns) were dummy directors who have been paid meagre amounts for lending their names as Directors.”
That sentence describes a market. Somewhere, people were paid small sums to become directors of companies they did not run, so that those companies could receive money.
The pattern the ED describes
The release identifies “a notable pattern… the continued trail of Chinese-linked entities which have been used to collect and layer Proceeds of Crime.” It observes that the web of interconnected entities shared “common addresses, email IDs, and directors” — which, in the ED’s assessment, “points to an organised and pre-planned money laundering operation.”
The individuals named
The ED states that multiple Chinese nationals have been named across the three prosecution complaints, identifying each with an entity:
- Linlei Yuan — M/s Magic Data Technology
- Zhou Jie — M/s Larting Pvt. Ltd.
- Ms. Wan Jun — M/s Jilian Consultants
- Ming Lou and Jian Li — M/s Zhudao Infotech
- Yanpeng QU — M/s Mad-Elephant Network Technology
- Yi Liu — M/s Omelette Technology
- Kevin Huang — M/s Adexter Concepts
The ED’s release says “among others”, so this is not presented as a complete list.
What this is, and is not
Every statement above is an allegation contained in a prosecution complaint. None of these individuals or companies has been convicted. The Special Court at Dimapur has not tried the complaint.
What is not in dispute is that the ED has filed it, and has said these things in a document published on its own website.
A note on names
The individuals named on this page are identified by the role and company attributed to them in the ED’s complaint. Several are common Indian names shared by many people, including public figures who have no connection whatever to this case and are not referred to here. Any person who shares one of these names but is not a key managerial person of the specific companies named in the ED’s complaint is not among the accused and nothing on this page refers to them.
Source
Every figure, name, date and case reference on this page is taken from the Directorate of Enforcement’s press release of 30 April 2026, issued by its Dimapur Sub-Zonal Office and published on the ED’s own website. Where secondary coverage of this case differs from the ED’s document, we have followed the ED. Nothing here is drawn from an anonymous source.
Right of reply
Every company and individual named on this page is invited to respond. If any figure, date, name, designation or description here is inaccurate, write to us with the correcting document and we will publish the correction, or the response in full, alongside this article without charge and without editing its substance.
No adjudication
No court has tried or determined any of these allegations. A prosecution complaint is an accusation made by an investigating agency, not a finding of guilt. All 437 persons and entities named across the three complaints in this case are accused; none has been convicted of anything described here, and each is presumed innocent unless and until a court holds otherwise. The descriptions on this page are the ED’s allegations, reported as allegations. Nothing here asserts that any person or company committed an offence, or asserts any intent, motive, knowledge or state of mind.
Source
Directorate of Enforcement press release, 30 April 2026 (Dimapur Sub-Zonal Office): https://enforcementdirectorate.gov.in/media/press-release-documents/d5aae482-1b50-4956-b4c3-d0a043bb1d6d_Press%20Release_HPZ_Token_2nd_SPC_30042026_DMSZO-2.pdf